A study to guide breeding of new cultivars of organic cherry tomato following a consumer-driven approach

Food Research International

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 265-273

  Rocha, Mariella de C ^a   Deliza, Rosires ^b   Corrêa, Fabio M ^c   Carmo, Margarida G F do ^a   Abboud, Antonio C S ^a  

^a FEDERAL RURAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

^b EMBRAPA AGROINDÚSTRIA DE ALIMENTOS   (Brazil)

^c FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF LAVRAS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Consumer; Organic cherry tomato; Preference

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE; CONSUMER PREFERENCES; DATA SETS; DISEASE RESISTANCE; NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; NUTRIENT CONTENTS; ORGANIC CHERRY TOMATO; PREFERENCE; SENSORY ATTRIBUTES; SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS; TASTING PRODUCTS;

COLOR;

FRUITS;

LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM; LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM VAR. CERASIFORME; PYRUS;

EID: 84872394563     PISSN: 09639969     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2012.12.019     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abboud A.C.S., De Oliveira T.V., Rocha M.C., De Oliveira G., Cheralt V.J.S.R., Deliza R. Identificando variedades de tomate cereja promissoras para o consumo in natura. Congresso Brasileiro de Horticultura 2005, CDROM, Fortaleza.
2. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) (Accessed on: 25th February 2005). http://www.anvisa.gov.br.
3. Andreuccetti C., Ferreira M.D., Tavares M. Perfil dos compradores de tomate de mesa em supermercados da região de Campinas. Horticultura Brasileira 2005, 23(1):148-153.
4. Azodanlou R., Darbellay C., Luisier J., Villettaz J., Amadò R. Development of a model for quality assessment of tomatoes and apricots. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und Technologie 2003, 36:223-233.
5. Baixauli R., Salvador A., Hough G., Fiszman S.M. How information about fibre (traditional and resistant starch) influences consumer acceptance of muffins. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:628-635.
6. Baldwin E.A., Scott J.W., Shewmaker C.K., Schuch W. Flavor trivia and tomato aroma: Biochemistry and possible mechanisms for control of important aroma components. Hortscience 2000, 35:1013-1021.
7. Beckmann M.Z., Paula V.A.De, Duarte G.R.B., Schuck M.R., Mendez M.E.G. Qualidade dos frutos de tomateiro sob adubação orgânica nas condiçoes verão e outono. XIII Congresso Iniciação Científica and VI Encontro da Pós-Graduação, 2004, Pelotas-RS 2004, UFPel, Pelotas-RS, (Abstracts [CD-ROM], v. 1).
8. Brasil Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA). Agricultura orgânica: dados e estatísticas 2008, MAPA, Brasília, Available in: . Accessed in: 23rd June, 2008.
9. BRASIL Ministério do Desenvolvimento Indústria e Comércio Exterior 2008, Secretaria de Comércio Exterior (SECEX), (Home page. Available in: . Acessed in: 20th June, 2008b).
10. Causse M., Buret M., Robini K., Verschave P. Inheritance of nutritional and sensory quality traits in fresh market tomato and relation to consumer preferences. Journal of Food Science 2003, 68:2342-2350.
11. Chabriat G., Sarazin M. Filières: le prix dela qualité. INRA Magazine 2010, 13:10-12.
12. Chitarra M.I.F., Chitarra A.B. Pós-colheita de frutas e hortaliças: Fisiologia e manuseio 2005, UFLA, Lavras. 2nd ed.
13. Christine Hoefkens C., Sioen I., Baert K., Meulenaer B., Henauw S., Vandekinderen I., et al. Consuming organic versus conventional vegetables: The effect on nutrient and contaminant intakes. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2010, 48:3048-3056.
14. Daillant-Spinnel B., MacFie H.J.H., Beyts P.K., Hedderley D. Relationships between perceived sensory properties and major preference directions of 12 varieties of apples from the Southern Hemisphere. Food Quality and Preference 1996, 7:113-126.
15. Deliza R., MacFie H.J.H. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. Journal of Sensory Studies 1996, 11:103-128.
16. Ellinger S., Ellinger J., Stehle P. Tomatoes, tomato products and lycopene in the prevention of a prostate cancer: Do we have the evidence from intervention studies?. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care 2006, 9:722-727.
17. a Reunião Anual da Região Brasileira da Sociedade internacional de Biometria 2000, 255-258. UFSCar, São Carlos, SP.
18. Gamble J., Jaeger S.R., Harker F.R. Preferences in pear appearance and response to novelty among Australian and New Zealand consumers. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2006, 41:38-47.
19. Giovannucci E. Tomato products, lycopene, and prostate cancer: A review of the epidemiological literature. Journal of Nutrition 2005, 135:2030S-2031S.
20. Grunert K.G., Hans Jørn Juhl H.J., Esbjerg L., Jensen B.B., Bech-Larsen T., Brunsø K., et al. Comparing methods for measuring consumer willingness to pay for a basic and an improved ready made soup product. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:607-619.
21. Hallmann E. The influence of organic and conventional cultivation systems on the nutritional value and content of bioactive compounds in selected tomato types. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2012, 92(14):2840-2848.
22. Jaeger S.R., Rossiter K.L., Wismer W.V., Harker F.R. Consumer-driven product development in the kiwifruit industry. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:187-198.
23. Johansson L., Haglund A., Berglund L., Lea P., Risvik E. Preference for tomatoes, affected by sensory attributes and information about growth conditions. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:289-298.
24. Kader A.A., Morris L.L., Stevens M.A., Albright-Holton M. Composition and flavor quality of fresh market tomatoes as influenced by some postharvest handling procedures. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 1978, 103:6-13.
25. Latocha P., Jankowski P., Radzanowska J. Genotypic difference in postharvest characteristics of hardy kiwifruit (Actinidia arguta and its hybrids), as a new commercial crop Part I. Sensory profiling and physicochemical differences. Food Research International 2011, 44:1936-1945.
26. Lê S., Ledauphin S. You like tomato, I like tomato: Segmentation of consumers with missing values. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:228-233.
27. MacFie H.J. Course short notes. Produto, Mercado e Inovação: Métodos Estatísticos Utilizados em Estudos de Consumidor 2005, Miramar Palace Hotel, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, (291 pp.).
28. MacFie H. Preference mapping and food product development. Consumer-led food product development 2007, 551-592. CRC Press, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge. H. MacFie (Ed.).
29. MacFie H.J., Bratchell N., Greenhoff K., Vallis L. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry over effects in Hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 1989, 4(8):129-148.
30. Maul F., Sargent S.A., Sims C.A., Baldwin E.A., Balaban M.O., Huber D.J. Tomato flavor and aroma quality as affected by storage temperature. Journal of Food Science 2000, 65:1228-1237.
31. Meiselman H. Integrating consumer responses to food products. Consumer-led food product development 2007, 3-33. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Abington, (Woodhead Publishing Limited). H. MacFie (Ed.).
32. Moretti C.L., Baldwin E.A., Sargent S.A., Huber D.J. Internal bruising alters aroma volatile profiles in tomato fruit tissues. Hortscience 2002, 37:378-382.
33. Moussaoui K.A., Varela P. Exploring consumer product profiling techniques and their linkage to a quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:1088-1099.
34. Nogueira R.B., Rosado P.L., Gomes A.S. Determinantes da demanda de hortaliças orgânicas em Ilhéus. Conjuntura & Planejamento 2009, 162(3):66-71.
35. Pagliarini E., Monteleone E., Ratti S. Sensory profile of eight tomato cultivars (Lycopersicon esculentum) and its relationship to consumer preference. Italy Journal of Food Science 2001, 3(13):285-295.
36. Pieniak S., Aertsens J., Verbeke W. Subjective and objective knowledge as determinants of organic vegetables consumption. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:581-588.
37. Rocha, M.C. (2009). Variabilidade fenotípica de acessos de tomate cereja sob manejo orgânico: características agronÔmicas, físico-químicas e sensoriais. 2009, 213 pp. Tese (Doutorado em Fitotecnia). Instituto de Agronomia, Departamento de Fitotecnia, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, RJ.
38. Rocha M.C., Gonçalves L.S.A., Corrêa F.M., Rodrigues R., Silva S.L., De Abboud A.C.S., et al. Descritores quantitativos na determinação da divergência genética entre acessos de tomateiro do grupo cereja. Ciência Rural 2009, 39(3):664-670.
39. Rodríguez-Burruezo A., Prohens J., Fita A.M. Breeding strategies for improving the performance and fruit quality of the pepino (Solanum muricatum): A model for the enhancement of underutilized exotic fruits. Food Research International 2011, 44:1927-1935.
40. Ruíz J.J., Alonso A., García-Martínez S., Valero M., Blasco P., Ruíz-Bevia F. Quantitative analysis of flavour volatiles detects differences among closely related traditional cultivars of tomato. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2005, 85:54-60.
41. Saha S., Hedau N.K., Mahajan V., Singh G., Gupta H.S., Gahalain A. Textural, nutritional and functional attributes in tomato genotypes for breeding better quality varieties. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2010, 90:239-244.
42. Stolz H., Stolz M., Janssen M., Hamm U. Preferences and determinants for organic, conventional and conventional-plus products - The case of occasional organic consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:772-779.
43. Stone H., Sidel J. Sensory evaluation practices 2004, Academic Press, New York, (377p). 3rd ed.
44. Varela P., Ares G. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International 2012, 48:893-908.
45. Willett W.C. Fruits, vegetables, and cancer prevention: Turmoil in the produce section. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2010, 102:510-511.
46. XLSTAT 7.0. (2005). Addinsoft: Paris, France.